But allowing a racist his right to free speech doesnt suddenly mean it'll be condoned. By all means condemn it, point out the flaws in the argument and it is likely they will be widely discredited, but do not criminalise someone for holding a view that we don't approve of. If we wish to live in a free society I think we have to allow everyone the right to speak their mind, because I dont feel we can go around picking and choosing who can have free speech and who cant, and starting to censor any views we dont like, that's been done far too much throughout history

I'm not saying I'm completely against freddom of speech, I'm saying there has to be a line somewhere which deems hatred through racism/anti-semitism/homophobia as wrong or illegal. If this means that it is no longer freedom of speech then so be it.

I just don't think people should think it their right to say whatever they want to a fellow human being even if it means insulting them in the very worst way

the line is when somebody preaches hatred or incites a mass audience. Not when they just voice their opinion in private incidences like this.

following your logic our police and judicial system would be crippled under the weight of cases. Do you know how many people suffer insults day in day out? Gays, blacks, midgets...whoever, whatever. Millions. They suck it up.

Humans insult each other. Always have always will. And you seem to have a very PC list of insults you find intolerable.

what if somebody insults my dear Mother? should they be arrested too?

Well I don't know about what goes down in France, but it is a criminal offence in the UK to racially or religiously verbally abuse another person, so I am pleased that he is being prosecuted.

Where's my PC list of intolerable insults?

people can hate on each other for all kinds of wrong and stupid reasons. I really don't see why these should get special treatment by law.

hate is hate

There is a difference between generally insulting someone to get a rise out of them, and using their race, religion or sexual orientation to harrass, insult and abuse them. It's totally irrelevant whether anyone on here thinks Galliano is hard done by - the fact is that he committed a prosecutable offence, end of.

I could say that I don't think it should be a criminal offence to drink alcohol in Saudi Arabia for example, but their laws say otherwise. Doesn't matter whether you agree or not. Do the crime, do the time.

Yes.. exactly this.

Insulting someone and inticing hate are two very different things, the latter being (and quite rightly so) a crime.

And how people keep thinking that by not knowing he was being filmed, exonerates Galliano is beyond me!

LOL now you suddenly get it?

and this isn't an all or nothing issue. Just because Im somewhat defending him it doesn't mean I dont think he hasn't done wrong. But it really needs putting in perspective.

the point about it being filmed is that the incident has now taken on a whole new life. Millions have now seen it. Without the camera just 3 people would have seen it. He did not intend it for a mass audience and therefore was NOT inciting anything. Jesus, Im just repeating myself at this point...

It doesn't matter whether he was being filmed or not - it seems some on here don't get that he actually committed a prosecutable offence, with or without a global audience. Just because he was drunk does not exonerate him or mitigate the offence.

I get that, under our current legal system, it may well have been a prosecutable offence, I'm just saying that I dont think it should be

Happyland, you are completely right. If we lived in a society peopled exclusively by logical individuals capable of independent judgement - universal freedom of speech would be a great idea. But we don't. We live in the kind of society where hundreds of thousands of people wait with bated breath on the proclamations of utter idiots - because they're 'famous'. These malleable masses need protecting from dangerous, hateful ideologies.
Here in Ireland there's an offence, under Section 6 of the Public Order Act, that you did "use or engage in abusive, insulting or threatening words or behaviour" which would happily accommodate Galliano's actions. Of course this kind of nastiness should be illegal.

deleted double post

meanwhile...

people are being mugged, raped, burgled and murdered and there are no police officers available. Because theyre too busy dealing with a drunk who slurred pro Hitler insults.

I think one officer, maybe two, could have managed. Are you suggesting we do away with prosecuting 'lesser' crimes altogether, to economise on manpower?

when you have limited resources you need to get real. Can't indulge in PC laws that are geared towards specific sensibilities. It should be about how threatening a person is being not the specific words they mutter. Free speech FTW.

:conf: Of course it should. I thought he was ranting at these women - not muttering? :conf:

ranting?

yeah they sure sounded threatened by the butch thug :rolleyes:

One thing I've learned over the years - a man does NOT have to be six foot two and muscle bound to pose a physical threat to a woman.

There is a shortage of police in Paris?

well I cba to check. But I suspect a french person would say yes.

you can never have too many police officers in a huge capital city so Ill take a guess at YES.

I dont get how he was 'inciting hatred' tbh. Just seems like a stupid drunken rant. And I'm sorry but judging by the video, the women didnt even seem too offended by it either. Giggling away.. not that that makes what he said right in any way, but I think this has been blown MASSIVELY out of proportion.

and this is the basis Im defending it on

big fuss about very little. No real victim(except himself now).

who the hell cares what he thinks about Hitler anyways?

:amazed: You don't see how he was inciting hate? Are you serious?

Mind you.. You've already made your feelings known towards Jews... What was it you called the area you live? Jew Central? Nice :bored:

^ Why did you use that amazed face? :laugh: